The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998).

Taken from nationsencyclopedia.com.

There is a reason we are starting WWIII and it isn't because Qadaffi is fighting rebels. I am afraid for my country and for the world as we know it.

Why are we starting WWIII? For god's sake man, tell us the reason!

Order out of chaos.

You create the problems needed to implement already predetermined solutions.

The americans are indoctrinated by the media to call everything a conspiracy theory as instructed by the now privatised version of the CIA operation mockingbird and are to busy watching dOprah or still stuck in walmart buying their trinkets to actually notice the deception

Many will oppose the New World Order and ALL will die trying.

Higelian Dialectic, an old tactic used by Julius Caesar, and still employed today by the NWO. Simple, yet effective.

only effective if you keep the people in a state of loyal obedience. it doesn't matter if they are loyal to right or left ideology. as long as they support a given viewpoint, they can be manipulated by this tactic.

if our ancestors would have continually fought to limit the control of government and nurtured a thorough distrust of all types of power, these fackers couldn't get away with the type of shit they have been recently.

word to noam chomsky.

you dumbasses just don't realize the elites are just as inept as anyone else, NWO pfft they can't even organize a proper war.

Yawn ... Go watch your TV Dumbass

the new world order takeover has been "on the verge of completion" since the 60s, go back to your john birch society meeting you fucking idiot, you don't realize your dumbass conspiracies actually help the corporate elite.

Blah blah blah ................. blah

Right?! Don't just leave us hangin' like that!

It's all because of these people they are satanists/lucifarians who are trying to bring about the coming of the antichrist or something like that.

How is this WW3? Ghadaffi has no major allies.

The only problem I have with your comment is that your facts relate to 1998, some 13 years ago, a lot can change since then...

There is a reason we are starting WWIII and it isn't because Qadaffi is fighting rebels. I am afraid for my country and for the world as we know it.

Seriously, please elaborate. This just seems a little over anxious for me. I mean of all the wars since WWII, why would this be it? The Korean War, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. Of all of the countries we have been involved with in conflict, why is Libya so important that it would spark WWIII? Oil isn't a good enough reason for me, because other countries we have already attacked have a lot more, in fact, the US even has a lot more domestically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

The fact that this is a join UN mission tells me they are just protecting oil assets (French oil companies), and probably ousting Qadaffi because he is pretty much slaughtering people and waging war on his own capita, but I don't see any real political play here. This is Africa, the continent that the world never seems to care about, and I don't see why they would enough now to start WWIII. Hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly on that continent everyday from lack of food and clean water, yet you think a few cruise missiles knocking out some SAM sites in Libya is going to spark WWIII?

I think you are over reacting.

I like the cut of your jib.

Is he really "pretty much slaughtering people and waging war on his own capita"? Or is he defending himself from "rebel forces" curiously well-equipped and organized?

This may not be the start of WWIII, but after witnessing two false wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as two true uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt (not to mention hastily censored reports of civilian casualties in Libya caused by air strikes), I think even red-blooded conservatives in America are waking up to the very obvious reality that this is no peacekeeping operation.

There seems to also be a division within Libya, no? The western parts, namely Tripoli, are privy to a lot more than the people in the east - where the oil actually is. The people of Libya get much less, on average, than what their government COULD provide. Gaddafi is blatantly stealing from his own people. Now, I'm not saying NATO doesn't have ulterior motives for assaulting the country, but your data doesnt really have much worth in this particular discussion.

the people of the usa get much less, on average, than what their government COULD provide. the banks and financial sectors are blatantly stealing from their own people.

ftfy

Um, 1998 was like.. 13 years ago?

SAY WHYYY

in north Korea, Iran, Egypt, Yemen we have developments in last years too!!

All,

The real reason we are invading Libya is to install a Rothschilds/IMF-controlled central bank in that nation.

Libya is one of only a few remaining nations in the whole world without one. Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan are the others. Small wonder why we won't leave them alone. Iraq was part of this group until 2004.

Can we get more on this please?

The Rothschilds have taken over almost the entire planet, save just a few countries. They are almost there.

they have I thought I knew a lot about them until I read this

Central Bank of Iraq established in 2004.

You mean a reddit post isn't 100% irrefutable proof?

Witch!

Is Iran on that list?

Some websites say so, but I did some research and discovered that Iran joined the IMF way back a long time ago. Still, because of its current troubles I speculate that Iran might be trying to wrest back some measure of independence in this regard. Here's an article I stumbled across just now:

Libyan Central-Bank Governor Is Replaced

What's really interesting to note with the Rothschild angle is that if they are as responsible for global happenings as people claim they are, then they appear to be stepping up, almost rushing their efforts to gain more control.

Why? What would force the most powerful people on the planet into a timetable not of their choosing?

Oh, this is interesting.

And info on the The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the IMF is in the first paragraph of that link

put on your tin hat and hold on to your butts!

I agree with the OP,

I had lived in Libya for 8 years- as a none arab, I was treated like crap by the people and HATED that country...

However, I can SAFELY say that what I'm reading on reddit and all the other media is complete BS.

These are NOT civilians, these are ARMED rebels.

there are millions of people that are fine with the gov, and only maybe 20 000 who are trying to rid of the gov.

the Libyan gov have done good to the people - heck i remember that they bought 20 000 $ cars (forgot the brand) and sold it to the people at 6000.... alot of good came out of the gov.

if Qadafi looses his hold on these morons - other counties better watch out, as these armed rebels are just asking for help from the west, when in reality all they want to do is KILL people from the west.

My friend almost got killed in my private school by ignorant idiots who thought you go to heaven for killing a christian- these people are nuts sometimes!

When does a civilian become a rebel? When he picks up a gun. No one is denying that the people fighting Gaddafi are armed - it's kinda hard to overthrow a mad dictator without them (although possible). Your estimations of "maybe 20 000" are just completely made up, by the way.

/r/conspiracy. Downvoting anything that makes sense since 2008.

this whole thread needs to move there

yes, when they break the rules and cause a threat. did we see people in Egypt getting weapons and bombing the gov? no...

It's true shit escalated a bit too much since Qadafi is a bit insane (sometimes really insane) however, EVEN if he does leave power and these guys, the REBELS go in power... do you people know who they are or what they want?

EVERY libyan person i met HATES america, christians and the jews. only a few educated ones are not insane about it.

so now they're sucking up to the states, once order is gone, they will be bombing us and hell will break loose.

We should've stayed out of this and left it for them to deal with - also if you were to read further on, you'll see why france pushed on this (all the assists they own).

why is there nothing being done in Bahrain, Ivory Coast...etc? how about Rawanda? years and years of slaughter?

All what our govs' want is money (oil and other assets)

I'd love to see an ama about Libya if you ever have the time :]

PLEASE do an AMA, let people on Reddit who don't subscribe to r/conspiracy hear what you have to say...

there are millions of people that are fine with the gov, and only maybe 20 000 who are trying to rid of the gov.

You sir are either misinformed or lying, those figures are wholly innaccurate. My family are out there, 20,000 against? I think you'll find it's the other way around. I'm staggered another human being can even quote figures like that. My feeling is shill!

Those numbers are just an example - and thats what I heard from my family after they chatted with some fam friends that are still there.

i don't imagine more than 10% MAX of the whole libyan population is doing this.

Omg say it isn't so!

Anyone who believes major western govts do anything other than represent the interests of the powerful while bullshitting a deliberately intellectually retarded tax base and labor force is a useful idiot.

Noting you are told is anywhere near the truth and 30+ years of mindnumbing tv culture and an education system that leaves most without critical thinking skills has left most of the western worlds majorities as brain dead ADD emotionally reactionary children spoonfed bullshit their entire lives.

Lies? The truth is America is the worlds buccaneer it boards countries like pirates used to board ships.

In a Jan. 21 video linkup with students at Georgetown University in Washington, Gadhafi suggested he may nationalize his oil sector has “raised some eyebrows” among international oil firms,

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/side/6255800.html

&

http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-courts-oil-and-gas-investors-but-faces-a-tough-sell-following-recent-government-fiascos-2010-2

ಠ_ಠ

One Year After Nationalization Threats, Libya Now Desperate For Oil And Gas Investors http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-courts-oil-and-gas-investors-but-faces-a-tough-sell-following-recent-government-fiascos-2010-2#ixzz1HCSok48A

This seem to contradict the alegation it “raised some eyebrows” or that what you are trying to imply

Lies, lies and more lies. I've seen our government lying about governments they wanted to fight as long as I remember. They just want to steal Libya's oil and destroy the country. Like they did Iraq. Obama is no different than Bush. And lies as much.

Obama is as much of a figure head as Bush was. All this has been planned out long time in advance and the fighting is certainly not limited to just two sides.

What do we do now. How can we get democracy back?

lol

\o/

back?

Yes.

we are a republic and the question is how do we wrestle away control of our republic from the monied interests?

A republic is a form of democracy. But yes, how do we wrestle control from monied interest.

I read a suggestion for the rebels in Egypt: Identify the property of the plutocracy. Set it on fire.

[deleted]

They do ignore peaceful protests. The last time they helped the American people was after the riots of the 60s. Then suddenly food stamps, welfare, EEO, etc.

On the other hand we are so drugged I doubt many of us will even protest.

yeah don't want a repeat of the library at alexandria tragedy.

No. Though I think Caesar burnt it down on purpose. Like I believe a lot of what was destroyed in Iraq was on purpose so the Iraqis would have less of a focus for their national identity. Israel has done the same thing in Palestine.

was a tragedy whom ever was responsible.

that is my fear...when the Mongol hoards rule they don't need no book learnin'.

oh look square 1...we are back.

Yeah good luck with that one, I hope shit really gets bad in America so you people can see what actually tyranny and oppression is like. Maybe you'll stop crying for revolution and chaos everytime you don't agree with something the government does. FYI most revolutions end with a more tyrannical and inexperienced government, the first american revolution is one of the few exceptions.

How much of this conflict do you think is scripted? My ears went up when Gadaffi started blaming Alqaeda.

I'm not 100% sure that Gaddaffi is actually in on the joke.

al q is a CIA illusion

Its less interesting when you realize that Al-qaeda has always been Muslims engaging in activity that is helpful to the Western military agenda. Also Al-qaeda was originally just the name of a database of CIA assets. So Gadaffi calling the agressors Al-qaeda is not that far off.

Libya just isn't very good at public relations since they have a limited supply of Jews.

puppets.

We were lied to about Serbia too.

We were lied to about [any other country we've attacked ever], too.

Thanks... for posting this. I agree.

The Rebels are killing all the black people too...

So it seems that there are quite a few African-looking (black) people living in Libya... not surprising, given that Libya is in North Africa.

Black people come to this Arab country because it is (was) stable, has (had) a good standard of living, has free health care and they can (could) find work there.

However, now, if you are black in Libya, you are in a lot of danger from the Libyan Rebels.

You see, the Libyan Rebels (the guys the US and France and the UK are supporting) don't like black people very much. There seems to be some ethnic cleansing (genocide) going on. They are saying that all black people are Pro-Ghaddafi Mercenaries and they are kidnapping and executing them. There have been various cases where black people in Libya have been attacked as mercenaries and found later to be just some laborers from a nearby country. See here and here and here .

The Rebels sometimes kill the black people and parade the corpses around. Watch this youtube video of actual dead black people piled onto a rebel's car, driven around for all to see.

As far as Ghaddafi hiring African Mercenaries, that is apparently just a rumor (if anyone finds any proof, please provide a link).

France has the foreign legion which is by definition is a mercenary army.

Who gives a shit if Gaddaffi has an army of mercenaries but the media love to use this against him

Four years ago, the Junior Senator from Illinois had this to say about the use of military force:

also

Obama Speech on Libya Taken From Bush Afghanistan

America is a fucking disgrace....the US UK and france just cant let go of their imperialist attitudes. For how long are you going to think that America is the good guys?

I think Americans are generally good people. Our government is generally ok too. It's the controlling interests that influence people with power (business/congress) that are fucking the world over really

We all contribute. If you look back at our founding fathers, and their strive for equality, you'll notice that they didn't give up their slaves at least until after they died in a will or after their wife died. We know oil is bad and produces all these outcomes, yet we continue to use products that are subsidized by the government that are connected to these resources that our military is used for acquiring.

TBH ive never met a bad american, in fact they are some of the most polite and hospitable people ive met BUT America is spilling the blood of people across the world for profit, americans have got it into their heads that they are the perennial good guys. If the US cared about rights of foreign ppl they wouldnt have turned their backs on Palestinians, or they would be more critical of china over Tibet etc etc etc. The US state and its press is filled with murderers and assassins or those that are complicit in such actions. Yes there are some good people like Dr paul, Kucinich and a few others but on the whole they are loons.

America is a big country with over 300 million people. How many Palestinians are there? 2.4 million? That's less than the state of Utah with 2.7 million people. And you want us to care?

Having said that, I will say that most of the people I know do care about the plight of the Palestinian people and vote accordingly (Massachusetts). But I am afraid we are in the minority.

Remember, also, that the U.S. is about 77% religious, the majority of whom are Christians, who are mostly supportive of Zion, and by default, against the Palestinians.

I am an atheist, so I am against Zionism.

sorry if i seem a little pissed but all i ever read is, US soldiers take photos laughing at dead civilians or US drones bomb pak civilians etc etc etc.

Think about who the US soldiers are. Not the officers, the brass, but the guys walking around on the ground. They are 17, 18, 19 year old boys who play video games, read 4chan and beat up fat kids at school. These are not men, they are not mature individuals, they have little or no education past a general high school one. These are not kids destined for Harvard or MIT or CalTech or Sarah Lawrence or Smith College. These are the kids who had no other option but to go to the military.

I understand wanting to give our government the benefit of the doubt, shit that's the only way they are able to do the things they do, but... Our government is not generally ok, they are fucked.

I'd say most conscious people realize this by age 14.

Nowadays, I presume that everything reported on by MSM is a lie.

me too

Add FOX in there and we are in agreement.

You can't go by anything anybody says. Nobody is trustworthy.

I've read that Wikileaks was started by the Chinese. I've read that it is maintained by Israel and the "cables" released have little or no actual impact, but are official enough to point fingers or create a stir.

Gordon Duff seems to be the only one with boots on the ground there who knows what's going on (military). There's another guy, Benjamin Fulford, who seems to know some things (financial).

I don't trust any source.

If you don't trust anyone you're not going to get anywhere.

I've taken to the stance that "trust is earned, not given" is some childish bullshit, and figure it's best to hear things out before being dismissive.

For example, I used to trust the BBC quite a bit before they started reporting the news in advance of its ocurrance.

Where do you think I have to go? Seriously though, I'm 48 and been all over this world. Lived in China for a year, spent several months in Germany, Korea, Ireland, Egypt...

The only people you can trust are those you know who are on the ground in that area. Otherwise, it's mostly hype and PR and selling advertisements

Amen. Didn't mean to imply you're doing that "trust is earned, not given" thing btw, just venting a little.

Maybe. You can't trust anyone though.

As for Fulford, I agree...he seems to have a screw loose these days. But he was the Japan BC for Forbes. You don't get that job without knowing something.

Thanks.

Hardly anyone seems able to consider these points. Redditors mostly downvoting any criticism of the imperialist bombings.

How can people not view this as another oil grab?

"The first casualty of war is Truth"

"Outrage" came when Gaddafi used airstrikes on his own people.

This is the first I've heard of that. I've heard of shelling, and people getting shot.

Also, Total made out REALLY WELL in that contract you're linking to. Total had a great deal with the Libyan government, it is unlikely that after this they will still have such a favorable contract, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say about that.

Nobody said Benghazi was a 'war zone' - the cruise missle strikes came in part as a response to Libyan forces continuing to advance toward Benghazi.

I agree that our intervention in Libya is not about us saving civilian lives or promoting democracy, but that doesn't change the fact that Gaddafi IS a murderous tyrant, and the majority of the people in Libya support a democratic uprising.

Did you watch any of Gaddafi's recent speeches? (if you can call them that)

How can you paint him out as a victim of an international conspiracy without acknowledging his own crimes?

Libyans quality of life is the best in Africa.

Source for this?

Sorry but I can't bring myself to believe a guy clinging to power for 40 years is the good guy.

a means to an end in a greater plot.

I bet you have an idea with regards to the bigger picture. Care to share?

I read Perkins second book and The Shock Doctrine in a third world country. I recommend that everyone get away to the ass poorest country nearest you to read these books.

ps. Love the first chapter of Doctrine. So warm and fuzzy.

I like your analysis. But I view this one as more of a crime of opportunity. Pure speculation though. It just seems too far fetched that the whole movement was completely planned. They might of planted a few seeds and hoped for a similar outcome, but I cant imagine someone planning this course of events.

Then don't think of it as an either/or. They're both capable of playing the bad guy.

Yeah, if the Bloods are fighting the Crips, we can be against both. We don't need to take a side.

I don't understand your point here. What does the number of years in power have to do with good guy or bad guy? If you're a good leader, why shouldn't you continue to do so as long as you're capable?

Simon Bolivar said it best:

THE continuationo f authority in a single individual has frequently been the downfall of democratic governments. Repeated elections are essential in popular systems, because nothing is more dangerous than allowing the same citizen to remain in power over a long period of time. The people become accustomed to obeying him, and he becomes accustomed to commanding them; this is how power is usurped and tyranny takes root. The freedom of the Republic must be jealously safeguarded, and our citizens should justly fear that the same magistrate who has governed them for many years might come to rule them for ever....

Eh... because the people 'become accustomed to obeying him' does not make him a bad guy. I mean, if he's a good leader, his extended amount of time being a good leader does not automatically make him a bad leader.

Now, I can see this argument having validity over the course of generations where... say a good leader passes on leadership to his son who is an 'okay' leader, who passes it on to a so-so son, who passes it on to a bad leader - each growing up and being more progressively used to the "rights and privileges" they get from leadership and less concerned about their responsibilities to the people - and by that time the people have gotten used to the "ruling" family and suffer under the rule of 'tyrants' because it's been done that way for a long time. But the amount of time in and of itself of a single person in power - though it can be a factor down the line if he begins to set up such a system - does not necessarily change him from a good guy to a bad guy.

his extended amount of time being a good leader does not automatically make him a bad leader.

What you're arguing with here is the axiom "power corrupts." Why can't your generational argument work for an individual? I am many men.

Eh yeah after thinking about it overnight, I can see where someone who, as he gets older, clings to power itself at all cost regardless of what's good for the people can turn a good leader into a bad. I still don't see that time-spent-in-leadership alone should be the deciding factor in whether someone a good or bad guy/leader. But yeah I can see where it can happen with an individual. I wouldn't judge a longstanding ruler on that basis unless there's evidence of that occurring, though.

BTW, whatever happened about this? Did they publish proof of it? I haven't heard much on mainstream media about it anymore. Guess that would explain the frontline operations being led by the French army.

Tripoli was historically the defacto place to go for false flags, no? :) Arrrrr....

Lol, you guys crack me up. I love you all.

If it's true that this is just about oil, then why is the UN also enforcing a no-fly zone in Bahrain, a country with no oil that is also presently slaughtering its democracy-seeking populace?

Wait, the UN isn't? Well I'm sure it will any day now.

Concerns about ulterior motives of the French in Africa have been around before this too. A lot of EU countries were hesitant to help them in the Congo recently because of concerns it was a form of neo-colonialism by the French in Africa.

The French are competing with China in Africa for resources. This move makes sense if the French are behind it.

They have definitely been the most gung-ho about it. They were the first to recognize the rebels, started support for action, and were the first to scramble aircraft. Of course, it is the USA that is doing most of the work at the beginning (the French and British don't have the capabilities); but the French are going to take the lead after the initial strikes are concluded.

I was trying to tell you guys this 3 weeks ago when they said all the protests were happening yet there were no video of anything but people throwing shoes at a screen of Gaddafi... this is the latest false-flag coup but definitely not the last; and you had better believe were going to war with Iran soon; if they don't act soon they know they will have no chance so im sure they will be forced to make the first move, only time will tell.

where were you? HOW COULD YOU even miss all the pictures and videos of the protests? There are THOUSANDS of them! Go look!

But how do you know those are actually Libyan people in the videos? How do you know that they are the "rebels." The only thing you know is what the media is feeding you and its all lies. Well 80% lies peppered with truth... believe what you want but I don't see how you can just confirm that all these people that are rebelling are from Libya or even have justification for that revolt.

I understand the skeptecism, but I'm pretty convinced. I see posters flying pictures of anti gaddafi phrases. I see their main cities packed with people. There doesn't seem to be a reason to doubt the authenticity of what's going on over there. I know the difference between some FOX news Bullshit picture authenticity. But im always willing to consider and look at the possibility of your perspective. Got anything I should see to sway my opinion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-_JsNrxiM - Farrakhan advises Obama on Libya.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/wor...i.compound.cnn - Gaddhafi Supporter In Tripoli: "We believe they(Americans) are trying to terrorize people and trying to weaken our spirits"

http://www.thelibertyunderground.net...rter-when.html - Did MSNBC cut off their Reporter when he begins to report the Civilian Deaths in Libya due to US air strikes? (@3:00)

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/vide...emical-weapons - Here We Go Again: "Gaddafi's KNOWN Chemical Weapons"

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptN...72H0N120110318 - Egypt arming Libya rebels, Wall Street Journal reports

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/858091-b...-william-hague - Britain may arm Libya Rebels

http://polizeros.com/2011/02/28/us-exempts-mercenaries-from-war-crimes-prosecution-in-un-measure/ - US exempts mercenaries from war crimes prosecution in UN measure

It is obvious to me that this is a false flag coup to overthrow the country and push the Israeli Zionist agenda even further in order to provoke Iran to strike first causing an all out World War against Zionist / Palestinian regimes.... in my mind its like a bully instigating you to strike first so he can for lack of a better word **** your world up.

How does this prove the false flag coup though? 2nd video, of course the Gaddhafi supporters are going to say that. 3rd video, probably happened, doesnt prove anything about a false flag coupe, etc. etc. Here is what I won't deny: As someone who has been keeping up on this as much as possible, I would be willing to say The U.S. does have an agenda here, and of course they are going to spin this in the best way possible for them. However, I don't think it goes as far as a false flag coupe, although perhaps close.

Where there's smoke there's a fire... And there's alot of smoke here... Don't forget that Libya is right next to Israel and is key territory for them to go after... Zionists have been pushing them out of there homes for ages now... Take a look at Palestinian occupied territory in 1950 and compare it to now... There is an agenda here and its not just about oil. Also Russia, China, Venezuela are all condemning these attacks. We spent 68 million dollars yesterday launching 120 missles... The military industrial complex rules as always

the biggest thing that goes contrary to your theory is all the tweets coming out of libia over this whole fiasco, thousands proving this is and was actually happening.

You're terrible. Learn to do this better. You're not convincing anyone of anything. Some of the people here a more intelligent than the idiots you can normally convince of your garbage. You can't use shallow sources as proof. Anything that can have holes shot through it by intelligence is useless here.

You're obviously not willing to look at your "theory" objectivly.

You're obviously not willing to look at your "theory" objectivly.

NPR interviews a "general" and a "military specialists" and a "captain" this morning. All measured and articulate in describing how awesome it is we are bombing Libyas military to dust. Thanks for trolling the so called "liberals" into a war of aggression, (not approved by congress btw).

Hope it works out great, just like Iraq with 1.5 million killed, liberated!

Lets not forget Tony Blair's meeting with Gaddafi back in 2007.

Under the terms of the deal, Britain was committed to “exchanges of information and views on defense structures, military and security organizations; exchanges of visits by experts and exchange of printed materials in the field of military education and science;

I think its clear just what kind of experts Blair sent in the exchange.

Then this article in 2009 Will Gaddafi pull a Chavez in the oil industry?

Over the last couple of years (2007-2009), the Libyan leader has held landmark meetings with Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi, Condoleezza Rice and Vladimir Putin all of whom vowed to strengthen cooperation with Tripoli in several projects, and especially in oil and gas development.

That is exactly why the West was caught by surprise when Gaddafi,..., was quoted by the press as saying he is considering nationalizing operations of international oil companies...

I love how people see Iraq and Libya as different. Let's see how they match up:

"The attack on Iraq was not justified because we attacked Iraq for their oil!"

We actually get almost no oil from Iraq. We get a similarly small amount from Libya, yet... no one's saying this is for oil, as well?

"The attack on Libya is justified because Gaddafi's a dictator committing a genocide against his own people!"

And Saddam didn't? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack - sure seems like he committed a far, FAR worse crime than anything anyone is claiming Gaddafi has done.

"The attack on Libya is justified because the UN has OK'ed it!"

1) Who cares what a bunch of national sovereignty-stealing crooks say? 2) The UN was sold to us as a way to prevent wars. Now we're starting wars because they say so? 3) Part of the justification of the Iraq war has been that Iraq violated UN resolutions.

They're both wrong. A couple of my friends are Middle Easterners. They don't like Gaddafi, but they're still against our involvement. Even the protesters have put up banners telling the western governments to stay out of this.

Try this

And that

Plus one more for the trifecta

Hmmm... another angle.

[deleted]

Inconceivable!

I've seen enough first-hand videos of gun battles, executions, bombings, and marauding mercenaries to know that RT is talking bullshit.

Youtube and liveleak. Google any of those words + Libya. If you've been browsing reddit over the past month, you would have seen numerous videos uploaded as well.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SaveLibya has a compilation of videos.

But could that not be a channel set up by CIA / Mossad assets to help justify an invasion of Libya?

Exactly. c0mputar is using incredibly easily compromised sources as proof. Numerous videos on Liveleak, Reddit and YouTube? Really? I've seen a lot of these videos and what was frustrating to me was never seeing them verified by anyone of any real credibility.

"verified by credibility" is the number one way of not knowing your being lied to.

france hopes to hold a greater stake in libyan oil post-gaddafi

source: http://www.zcommunications.org/libyan-developments-by-gilbert-achcar

the history of "no-fly" zones in the middle east

http://www.zcommunications.org/dont-no-fly-libya-by-phyllis-bennis

I love the report on CNN today where Fox News lies about reporters being used as human shields

Well there's a first.. Go figure..

i'm sorry this statement just shows your ignorance on the subject. i ask anyone who says this is a purely armed rebellion to answer honestly: when did you start following the events in libya? i bet you think the protests started on the 17th. instead of making up random conspiracy theories, how about you talk to someone who actually has family in libya who will tell you what is going on. protests STARTED peacefully, but they would be mowed down by live fire. and they were shot at with anti-aircraft and anti-tank rounds. it became an armed rebellion when police and army members refused to shoot at their own people and started defending them. look at tripoli, they have no guns at all there, and they have came out multiple times in peaceful protests only to be mowed down. seriously this ignorance of the issue. yes the bombings of civilian residents wasnt true, but because of one rumor you're gonna dismiss all the facts? and of course there were rumors, people saw and heard explosions, which was from shelling of cities, and assumed they were from planes. there are no media allowed, and everything is by word of mouth. say wat u want about US and british true interests in the region, but to say this started as an armed rebellion is just retarded

you do realize that libya's population is much smaller than egypt or tunisia? o and yes there are videos of huge protests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-pF-POM0Dw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiYoMNoL3TI&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pIYTteuRlI&feature=channel_video_title

There are a ton other, you can just search on youtube of the mass protests.

Multiple times to protest to be mowed down sure (be careful they are very graphic): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5-Lnl9xOT8&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vijCx1XzQlw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVwJEFfOa_w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJbgiIBRztc&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klo7uws3OWI&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0PO97pMTQg&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEMW8ZmiSk&feature=channel_video_title

There are a TON of videos of people getting killed. im talking about from peacefully protesting not the ones out fighting now.

OMG benghazi has media NOW. there wasnt any media for over a week in libya, and that is the time period that the rumors of the bombing came from. gaddafi IS shelling the people: (example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfydO-Z-D0M, a lot more videos with this if you feel its not sufficient)

YES rumors were abound in the beginning, but are you going to deny the massacres that have been going on in the country?

Lol. Credibility and verification please... You're just hurting yourself with these questionable videos.

here's the problem you now put. if i post independently recorded video they're "questionable", if i put video put by western media outlets you say "propaganda". its honestly not even worth it. look at those videos of people protesting, waving the revolutionary flag and chanting anti-gaddafi slogans. where do you think thats happening, france? common give me a break

look up videos for yourself. you say you've been following the events from the beginning, then by which media outlet and which sources? you're not a libyan, you don't know people in libya. it was a complete blackout for the first week, so how would you have heard anything?

i'm sorry this statement just shows your ignorance on the subject. i ask anyone who says this is a purely armed rebellion to answer honestly: when did you start following the events in libya? i bet you think the protests started on the 17th. instead of making up random conspiracy theories, how about you talk to someone who actually has family in libya who will tell you what is going on. protests STARTED peacefully, but they would be mowed down by live fire. and they were shot at with anti-aircraft and anti-tank rounds. it became an armed rebellion when police and army members refused to shoot at their own people and started defending them. look at tripoli, they have no guns at all there, and they have came out multiple times in peaceful protests only to be mowed down. seriously this ignorance of the issue. yes the bombings of civilian residents wasnt true, but because of one rumor you're gonna dismiss all the facts? and of course there were rumors, people saw and heard explosions, which was from shelling of cities, and assumed they were from planes. there are no media allowed, and everything is by word of mouth. say wat u want about US and british true interests in the region, but to say this started as an armed rebellion is just retarded

[deleted]

Wow. Where can I find more idiots like yourself? I have a huge hole that I need dug. Credibility and verification next time please...

It was, quite clearly, an honest mistake. And maybe the reason why conspiracy theories are rarely supported by the public is because people like you put down anyone who asks about the topic, and prefer to insult rather than inform.

If you watched this story unfold from the beginning, you would see that it did start out somewhat in that fasion. Peaceful protestors were protesting untill they were so many, that Gaddafi started mandating curfues and using force to try to get rid of the protestors. Gaddafi made the first move to use force against them, and as such we are now at our present state of the situation.

It's unfortunate that you're on this side of the argument, because with a (LOT MORE) research you'de be able to find answers that go against your current theory and point of view.

your point is true, but wtf are you talking about. it doesn't prove a thing against what I stated.

You make some interesting points, and I will be sure to look further into this. But, you are aware that a no-fly zone resolution means only that Libya cannot use their planes, right? There is no actual deployment by any country to Libya, nor is any country supporting either side. The fear that Libya might attack civilians from the air is a quite legitimate one.

Quite simply, if no Libyan plane leaves the ground then all external involvement in Libya ends. As in all external involvement in it's totality will cease. This isn't a war or an invasion.

What about the two Libyan pilots who defected and flew to Malta, claiming that they defected because they had been told to fire at civilians?

Aside from that, you cannot invade a country simply from the air.

What about the Western media plus Al-Jazeera claiming that the civilian bombing had already occurred.

Errrr, except for the random cruise missile attacks. The ones "not targetting Gadaffi" yet which somehow struck his home today.

I haven't heard a thing about this. Link?

I saw it on CNN not more than an hour ago. First, the US denies they used any missile at all on his compound, then some reporters found a few missile parts with English words on them (like, "motor assembly part #3" or some such). The military then says, "OOOOOooohhh, you mean THOSE missiles. Yeah, that was, um, knocking out some 'command and control' infrastructure that just, er, happened to also be in his house. It's a coincidence, we weren't targeting him at all." Sorry, no links, I'm just getting this from the tee vee.

Edit: top article on CNN at the moment: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/21/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

"A coalition military official insisted neither Gadhafi nor his residence were intended targets of the bombing late Sunday. But the official -- who was not being identified because of the sensitivity of the information -- said the compound was targeted because it contained capabilities to exercise command and control over Libyan forces."

Aaaah, yes, makes perfect sense. We're not going after Gadhafi, we're just targeting, you know, the surrounding 100 foot area that he's standing in. Screw that area.

That is troubling :/

I wanted to be excited that this 'no-fly-zone' was the US finally standing up for the little guy in a real way that didn't involve imperialism. Don't burst my bubble.

cui bono always applies...

"I am the walrus"

That would be an oversight. The US is completely fucked these days as a matter of policy and agenda.

From what I've seen in the press the over 110 Tomahawk missiles into Libya from the US and UK sure doesn't seem like the aggression "totality" ceased, even with no Libyan planes in the air.

Maybe that explains why the Arab League is now voicing their displeasure with this, saying it's no longer a "no fly zone" but some other military exercise they will not support.

Or maybe they think they're next

I'm sure they do. The UN is attacking a sovereign nation, not enforcing a no fly zone, and they are well aware they could be hit next.

What did you think a no fly zone was going to be? Dog fights? It was explained weeks ago that ground targets would have to be taken out so air dominance can be established.

Then the UN resolution stated that civilians should be protected from Libyan forces. That's why tanks and other ground targets are being destroyed. The Arab league knew that and it is still unclear that they are officially critical of the attacks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803222

And to this whole the Libyan civilian bombing hasn't been documented argument. Why were there defectors that flew Migs to Malta and say they were ordered to bomb and shoot protesters. Just because you can't find a you-tube video showing a plane actively bombing people doesn't mean it never happened.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this standard procedure when a no-fly zone is enforced in foreign land. They need to remove Libya's ability to disobey. From what I've heard there hasn't been any casualties.

disobey what? if there's a rule saying that a government can't defend itself from an armed insurrection, please show me. as far as i'm aware, this is a civil war and the united states nations is illegally intervening in a sovereign nation's affairs. whether you call it an invasion (my preferred nomenclature), a simple NFZ, whatever.. i'm of the mind that the UN's actions are completely unjustified. just b/c it's multilateral doesn't make it right.

Disobey the UN resolution that enforces a no-fly zone over Libya. Whether or not you think there should be such a resolution, there is, therefor Libya can either obey or disobey. You may think that Libya is right to disobey, but still there is something to disobey.

I personally believe that the UN Resolution seeks to impose the sovereignty of the people, as opposed to the sovereignty of the government. It has become immensely obvious that they people of Libya would like a new government. At what point did we decide that the sovereignty of a government was more important than the will of the people that government are supposed to serve?

Edit: If it is your belief that it isn't the will of the people, I would be more than willing to listen to why - I am simply saying this is the way it appears to me from initial impressions and an admittedly limited knowledge on the subject.

here's my point. the libyan people aren't a monolithic anit-gaddafi bloc. there are plenty of people (mostly in the west) that still support the old bastard. you might not have seen it on our media, but there's been pro-gaddafi gatherings as well. in terms of sovereignty, the state has the sovereignty over a given land area unless it is shown to have grossly abused that power.

now, what we have in libya isn't just a one way street. it's a civil war. as i see it, the libyan people are fighting amongst themselves to determine who has (or hasn't) the sovereign right to rule the area that compromises the libyan state. since this conflict isn't pouring into other states (thereby infringing on their sovereignty) and there isn't evidence of human rights abuses in this conflict, i'd say that the state still has sovereignty. do i hope the rebels win? sure. but i think that they should win by themselves.

also, here's an example of why i think the UN involvement is wrong. let's take our civil war. let's imagine we start fighting in 1861 and a few weeks into the war, great britain says "well fuck india, if the US is in a war, let's go see if we can't get on the confederates' side and maybe get a piece of that big resource pie over there!" so they start sending ships and they're just bombing the fuck outta washington, ny and boston, severely hampering the Union's effort to defend itself as a sovereign state. do you support that hypothetical international interference?

and there isn't evidence of human rights abuses in this conflict

...

there are plenty of people (mostly in the west) that still support the old bastard. you might not have seen it on our media, but there's been pro-gaddafi gatherings as well.

That's not really the point. The majority, it would seem, no longer want Gaddafi to rule there country. Why does incumbency and an armed militia make Gaddafi right and preclude external influence?

...

there needs to be concrete proof of this. dots don't do the trick

and you can't just revoke sovereignty. it's like guilt in an american court, just b/c someone is accused doesn't mean that person is guilty. it's b/c of his incumbency and his armed forces (he's on equal footing to obama and the US armed forces in the eyes of the UN) that his gov't has sovereignty. and if defying UN resolutions was all that was needed for a revocation of sovereignty, there'd be quite a few states all around the globe that wouldn't have the right to rule the land that they control.

and i agree that the majority don't want gaddafi to rule the country, that's why there's a civil war. and if the majority not wanting a leader in power serves as impetus for UN action, where were france and the uk after the 2000 elections in the US?

and i agree that the majority don't want gaddafi to rule the country, that's why there's a civil war. and if the majority not wanting a leader in power serves as impetus for UN action, where were france and the uk after the 2000 elections in the US?

You're not serious are you? You can't seriously think that people changing their minds about a democratically elected leader is the same as a leader who forced his way into power and refuses to leave slaughtering all opposition in order to maintain power.

If you don't agree with the UN Resolution, that's fine, but don't base your dissent on some false notion that Gaddafi isn't a violent fascist or that he has any place ruling Libya besides the fact that he is already ruling Libya and has enough military force to oppress his people.

The revocation of sovereignty is not based on disobeying a UN Resolution, but rather the UN Resolution is based on a perceived end of Gaddafi's sovereignty over Libya. Libya's sovereignty is not at stake here; Gaddafi's is. Gaddafi is the only thing keeping Libya from being sovereign.

no of course i'm not serious. i'm taking what you said to the extreme to show that your generalities aren't helping this discussion. i think the fucker needs to go but 3 assholes from the UNSC firing missiles at his house when it's a NFZ operation isn't the way to go about this power exchange. and its motives are dubious at the very least.

The revocation of sovereignty is not based on disobeying a UN Resolution, but rather the UN Resolution is based on a perceived end of Gaddafi's sovereignty over Libya. Libya's sovereignty is not at stake here; Gaddafi's is. Gaddafi is the only thing keeping Libya from being sovereign.

When did libya lose sovereignty? when gaddafi had the coup 40 yrs ago? when factions w/in his country decided to try and oust him? if we didn't like gaddafi so much, why did we try to bring him into the fold of 'normal' UN countries so recently? if it's all about being an asshole, why didn't we bomb him after lockerbie and all the other shit he's pulled?

a country's sovereignty isn't dependent on what form of gov't it happens to possess. revoking a state's sovereignty is serious business so i suggest that you read the UN charter before you continue, it'd be helpful.

another related point - if the UN was so against gaddafi, why were they patting him on the back for the past half decade? if you think this is just about gaddafi, think again man. it's not about him 'nearing benghazi' it's about the oil under benghazi and the rest of eastern libya.

a country's sovereignty isn't dependent on what form of gov't it happens to possess. revoking a state's sovereignty is serious business so i suggest that you read the UN charter before you continue, it'd be helpful.

My point was that the sovereignty of a countries people trumps the sovereignty of a countries government.

And you're probably right about the motives of the involved countries, but motives alone don't invalidate actions. So long as what they are doing falls in line with what should be done I could care a lot less why they are doing it.

here you go. it's the UN charter. sovereignty isn't a matter of opinion. * dead *

My post wasn't really that long, you could take the time to read it. As I said: I'm not saying Libya isn't a sovereign nation, I am saying that the sovereignty of a government isn't as important as the will of the people. No definition of what sovereignty is refutes this. We aren't arguing about the definition of sovereignty.

RT is russian

what are yours? US media?

Whatever Gaddafi, get off of reddit. It's so stereotypical that you'd be hanging around in r/conspiracy.

I'm sure they do. The UN is attacking a sovereign nation, not enforcing a no fly zone, and they are well aware they could be hit next.

That is troubling :/

I wanted to be excited that this 'no-fly-zone' was the US finally standing up for the little guy in a real way that didn't involve imperialism. Don't burst my bubble.

You're terrible. Learn to do this better. You're not convincing anyone of anything. Some of the people here a more intelligent than the idiots you can normally convince of your garbage. You can't use shallow sources as proof. Anything that can have holes shot through it by intelligence is useless here.